When you are interviewed, its never good to be argumentative. The reason why is that you never get your point across and you look petty. Lets take the first question that triggered Ben which was the Georgia Ban on abortion. So the interview guy specifically stated going backwards and gave 2 examples. This triggered Ben who had an opportunity to explain why he believed the ban was a good thing and to explain why those 2 examples were legit but instead he concentrated on the farming of the question got argumentative and end up not answering the question or giving his opinion on the issue.

He also did not own up to any of his bad quotes. He told the interviewer to go to a website and read up on it but he had the chance in the interview to give his side. The only people who will go to his site are the people who already follow him. If Ben is trying to show a different side of himself he had the opportunity during the interview to do so. You cannot sit there and preach about change then get all arrogant and defensive about previous ills in his past. If anything I came away from that interview believing his book is only facade and the person who wrote is still the same person who made those quotes.

True. And that's why Shaprio came off looking bad. However, that's a fault of style, not necessarily virtue. I could never be famous myself because I could never handle the constant scrutiny and judging of each appearance. It must be exhausting and hardening to have to constantly have your public persona wall up at all times.

And I'm not sure how acknowledging your mistakes to something to the point of writing articles and putting it on your website isn't owning up to it.

If anything I came away from that interview believing his book is only facade and the person who wrote is still the same person who made those quotes.

And, in the end, that was the point. To give people an excuse to dismiss him. That's what we constantly do, no matter how articulate the individual, we find an excuse to disqualify our enemy's message so as not to have to engage with it.

If the interviewer was trying to make viewers dismiss Ben, isn't it up to Ben not to make it so easy. Its one thing to be baited, its something else to jump both feet into the trap knowing the results. Here is the thing. Ben has a book that talks about the very thing he promoted in the past. Why would any interviewer not challenge him to prove that he has changed. That is how I took the questions from the interviewer. The question is Ben grandstanding or is he truly changed how he approached topics. From that interview Ben failed the test. Do we believe this will be the only time Ben will be challenged whether or not he isn't the same person who promoted toxic rhetoric, probably not. There are many people who talk about change but they are only talking about everyone else besides themselves. This was the take away from that interview. Ben is only preaching about everyone else needs to change besides himself.

This is one of the main problems though. People like Trump and Ben put stuff out there and yet the media goes after them for those same things over and over. When you're the type of person who goes out of their way to lay things out as easily and clearly as possible in advance, and then you have opposition constantly ask you about those same things over and over, especially when it's beyond old news, it no doubt is really going to get on your nerves. The point in spending the time in advance was so you didn't have to waste time later, as well as trying to stop anyone from bringing it up later to use against you. If your audience requires your media platform to get Ben or Trumps view on things, they'll give you a shot if you're going to be legit, but if you're looking to make a fool of them, then your audience can pay money to find out more about them. As far as Ben would be concerned, it's their loss and it's mostly because of the platform, not him.

Ben put's info on his website and writes books, and then people want him to go over it all again. Now if it was legit and they just wanted to know what he meant, that's one thing, but when they are trying to make him look bad he's not going to have it. It's like Trump and his billions lost. Everyone already knows. He even laid it out on The Apprentice, that he was super deep in debt and crawled his way out. He even has a book called The Art of The Comeback. This is why they go on the offensive so quickly. They already have gone over this, and you can find out more for free in some ways, and pay in others, like for their books. Since their opposition likely wouldn't go to the trouble, or clearly hasn't, why should they go to the trouble of explaining what they already have over and over?

Lol, Don't even bother throwing Trump in with Ben. On a daily basis we see that Trump is still the same person today as he has been every day of his life. Not only does Trump doesn't promote to be different or changed from his past he relishes it. He has always been a grifter and con man, a total idiot and straight up fraud and nothing today has changed any of that. He still lies to his constituents like they are stupid and you still defend him. I have read The Art o the Comeback just like I read the Art of the Deal, and both shows Trump hasn't changed a bit. I ask if you have read either or are you still drinking the kool aid that Trump is somehow some great businessman.

At least with Ben you can say he is trying to make a change but talking about something and actually doing it are 2 different things. When challenged he came up short. The next time he should do better, definitely prepare better because no one takes anyone serious unless they can prove they have changed not just looking for others to change while they stay the same.

Currently Playing:

Pointing out that Ben Shapiro himself has contributed to this problem is not undercutting the message, and it would be terrible journalism to ignore those examples. If Ben Sharpiro looks bad here he himself and the way he handled the interview is to blame.

I too dislike "x got DESTROYED" headlines, which is part of why I posted the original interview and not one of the reaction videos.

However, in this case Ben Shapiro has owned up to his own misbehavior. If this were an interview interested in moving the ball forward, they'd follow along the lines of trying to live up to his message. That's how dialogue happens.

Instead it was just another gotcha quote following it up. Honestly, the prep work for the interview probably just came from a dumping ground of quotes compiled by Media Matters or something.

If he truly owned up to it then it should have been easy for him to handle the questions he got. And he should have been prepared for those kind of questions because anyone with a brain would see them coming.

Moving the ball forward? Follow along the lines? Why would there be interest in doing that, this is a political interview not the Oprah Winfrey Show. The job of the interviewer is to make the interviewee defend and explain his or her position or argument, look for contradictions, confront, etc. If a politician is saying this but used to say that it would only make sense for the interviewer to point out and ask about why that is.

Currently Playing:

"I don't believe that "incompatible cultures" exist. People are individuals, and they tend to morph into the dominant culture. "

this is a non-sequitur, people being individuals and adopting a new culture is unrelated to cultures in some instances being incompatible

you aren't acknowledging that sometimes people choose to retain their culture in spite of their environment

and you don't think cultures that for example repress the freedoms of women or collect the heads of outsiders they come into contact with are incompatible with western culture?

>repress the freedoms of women

There are Americans who want the exact thing. So no that doesn't seem to be at odds with western culture.

>collect the heads of outsiders

If such a culture existed, sure. That would be incompatible, but if someone had such a staunch hatred of outsiders, chances don't seem too good that they'd move somewhere else.

o_O.Q said:

""Spending more" is meaningless. "

well the only other way would be to stop your government from intruding in the affairs of others and how are you going to do that when you want the size of your government to increase?

never mind that with regards to that issue the ship has already sailed

My commentary there has no regard to "big" or "small" government.

o_O.Q said:

"I don't disagree, but that's not just a product of "big government"."

it is inevitable with big government that has a security apparatus that is not transparent and unaccountable to citizens which has been the case with just about every big government throughout the history of mankind and for some unfathomable reason many people do not seem to understand that

"It is inevitable" is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because there's a path from A to B, doesn't mean that it has to be taken.

"security apparatus" is moreso something that "small government" people push forward. And I agree with you that "small government" people aren't actually for small government. But I find that to be a majority.

Most "small government" people here want a big government because they want it to keep them safe. A militarized border, a large military, strong police force are things being pushed by "small government" advocates.

You can have a big government that has to be accountable to its people.

o_O.Q said:

"But if someone were at the point where they are choosing to die"

so if there is a risk of death the borders should be open?

Sure.

"There are Americans who want the exact thing. So no that doesn't seem to be at odds with western culture."

and there are people in the middle east who want absolute freedom for women? does that mean both cultures are the same? are you really trying to make broad statements about culture based on observations of outliers?

"My commentary there has no regard to "big" or "small" government."

it absolutely does, the size of government determines to what degree intrusion in the affairs of other countries(including aid) is possible

""It is inevitable" is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because there's a path from A to B, doesn't mean that it has to be taken. "

its not a fallacy if every time something has occurred in the past it has lead to the same result

at that point its fair to say that you move beyond something being possible and maybe even past it being probable

this is nonsense, libertarians want the military to be reduced and its funding to be reduced

you are not referring to small government people but people who want government to be restructured and there is a difference between the two

"Most "small government" people here want a big government because they want it to keep them safe. A militarized border, a large military, strong police force are things being pushed by "small government" advocates. "

wrong, wrong, wrong

"You can have a big government that has to be accountable to its people."

how? it has never been done in the history of mankind so i think its fair to ask you how

in rome a centurion at any time could grab you off the street and behead you and the same applies throughout the past in just about every civilisation that has ever existed